Critical Asian Studies 45:1 (2013), 119–132 Myrdal / What Does It Mean to Be a Marxist? HARI SHARMA MEMORIAL LECTURE “WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A MARXIST?” Hari Sharma and the Marxist Tradition Jan Myrdal ABSTRACT: The Hari Sharma Memorial Lecture series was instituted by the Dr. Hari Sharma Foundation for South Asian Advancement in memory of Hari Sharma, who left his estate to the Foundation when he passed away in 2010. The purpose of the series is to present scholars and writers who have made a significant contribution to the struggle for emancipation in South Asia. The first lecture in this series was pre- sented by Jan Myrdal, one of the most prominent Swedish writers, a life-long Marxist, and for many years a friend of Hari Sharma. Myrdal wrote his first book on Downloaded by [University of York] at 06:16 12 April 2013 India, India Waits, after his visit to the “disturbed areas” of Andhra as a guest of C.P. Reddy in 1980. He visited Dandakaranya in 2010 at the invitation of the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and wrote about his conversation with the leadership of the party in Red Star over India: Impressions, Reflections and Discussions When the Wretched of the Earth Are Rising (Kolkata, 2012). Following his speaking tour after the book’s release in Kolkata, Myrdal was banned from visiting India by the Govern- ment of India. The 2012 Hari Sharma Memorial Lecture was held at the Vancouver Public Library in Vancouver, B.C., Canada, on 17 November 2012. (Note: Hari Sharma was a long- time member of the editorial board of Critical Asian Studies.) Professor Hari Sharma was to me a personal and dear friend. We met, talked, and discussed during many years in different countries: on the India where he had been born, on China, on developments in the world. He visited us in our home in Sweden; I and Gun Kessle also stayed with him ISSN 1467-2715 print/1472-6033 online / 01 / 000113–14 ©2013 BCAS, Inc. DOI:10.1080/14672715.2013.758823 in his home here in Vancouver. I was deeply shocked on hearing that he had died as I was coming back from the guerrilla zone in Dandakaranya where the Naxalites, the CPI (Maoist), were leading the struggle for a new India. I had hoped to be able to dis- cuss this development with him. His death made me look back and reflect, politically and personally. Many have talked and written on his qualities as an individual, as a friend. He was a writer, a photographer, a very fine one. But I will, not quite at random, thus discuss some of the principal political and theoretical questions his life and work raise. Hari Sharma Hari Sharma was a Marxist. I could “a Marxist in the Mehring tradition” —Jan Myrdal say the same about myself. But what does this mean? As a label it can stand for anything. That we know. It is not a recent phenomenon. Writing to Eduard Bernstein in November 1883 about the so-called “Marxists” in France, Engels re- ferred to what Marx had said to Lafargue about them: “Ce qu’il y a de certain c’est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (If anything is certain, it is that I myself am not a Marxist).1 Hari Sharma took part in the practical—and the ideological—class struggle; all of us in class societies have automatically done so these last 5,000 or so years. That which was important was that when he in practice took sides in the anti-im- perialist struggle against the ruling class during the war in Indo-China he thus became politically—socially—conscious: a Marxist. Does “Marxist” then mean that a Marxist is someone who holds that Karl Marx was right in the way in which he regarded—and thus acted in—the society Downloaded by [University of York] at 06:16 12 April 2013 in which he lived or does it mean that all that Dr. Karl Heinrich Marx (5 May 1818–14 March 1883) did write and say during his lifetime was factually correct? This is an important point to clarify. Most would agree that what Marx wrote was not inspired in the way the Apostle Paul wrote in II Timothy 3:16: “All scrip- ture is given by inspiration of God.” But many who have styled themselves Marxists have behaved as if. This has consequences. To take an example. In the 1920s and early 1930s Dr. Karl Wittfogel was a leading Marxist in the German Communist Party.In the Ger- many of 1931, when the Hitlerite demagogy was a growing threat, Wittfogel, by citing different quotes were Marx and Engels had used the word “race” (cf. the English lyrics of the “Internationale”: the “human race”) became the first to for- 1. MEW 35, 388. 120 Critical Asian Studies 45:1 (2013) mulate a “Marxist” theory of racism. He did that in the first chapter of his monumental work Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Chinas, Versuch der wissen- schaftlichen Analyse einer großen asiatischen Agrargesellschaft.2 Now Wittfogel was a very sectarian communist with a destructive ideological influence also in other fields, and thus not surprisingly he later in the United States became a virulent anticommunist, a McCarthyist. But fortunately his 1931 construction of a Marxist racism never had any real impact; the thirties were a period when not only communist but also socialist and liberal writers for obvious reasons carried out an ideologically necessary struggle against racism and biologism. But by erecting a Marxist theory of race from different quotes, Wittfogel not only went against the very Marxism he said that he represented. He went against academic tradition. When Lawrence Krader published The Ethnological Note- books of Karl Marx in 1972, he rightly could point out: “A recurrent theme is Marx’s systematic and uncompromising rejection of race, racism and biologism generally as a determinant without further qualification of social affairs.”3 Yes, Marx was very forthright: “The devil take this ‘Aryan’ cant!” and “The village communities of the Aryan (!again this nonsense!) race.…”4 To construct a Marxism, the “Thought of Karl Marx,” if you want to put it that way, by adding a quote to a quote to a quote is not possible. You end up with a pile of quotes just like you end up with a pile of potatoes if you add a potatoe to a potatoe to a potatoe. Due to their ideology many bourgeois writers, academic or not , have difficulty in understanding this. Engels explained their difficulty in 1894 in his introduction to the third volume of The Capital: They rest upon the false assumption that Marx wishes to define where he only investigates, and that in general one might expect fixed cut-to-mea- sure, once and for all applicable definitions in Marx’s works. It is self- evident that where things and their interrelations are conceived, not as fixed, but as changing , their mental images, the ideas, are likewise subject to change and transformation; and they are not encapsulated in rigid definitions, but are developed in their historical or logical process of transformation.5 Downloaded by [University of York] at 06:16 12 April 2013 To this comes that Marx and Engels, not being inspired, always worked from facts as they knew them. When this knowledge changed, so they changed. To understand this one can read the beginning of the Communist Manifesto: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.” Then look to the footnote Engels wrote in 1888 to the English edition after the word “soci- ety,” which he then included in the last German edition he edited in 1890: “That is, all written history. In 1847, the pre-history of society, the social organisation existing previous to recorded history, was all but unknown. Since then.…”6 2. Wittfogel 1931, 9. 3. Krader 1972, 37. 4. Ibid., 324 and 335. 5. Available at www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/pref.htm/pref.htm. His original German text is in MEGA 2, II, 15, p. 16. 6. See on this MEW 4, p. 462. Berlin 1964. Myrdal / What Does It Mean to Be a Marxist? 121 In this sense Marx and Engels were always revising their opinions. Revisionism is different. It is a political trend beginning with the Fabian League during the late 1880s and developed in the German labor move- ment from 1894 onwards; and the best known repre- sentative then was Eduard Bernstein (“The movement is everything; the final goal nothing”). The seemingly abstract discussion at that time from these “revisionists” in the socialist parties about the Marxian mistake in keeping to dialectics and material- ism and class struggle was Gun Kessle (d. 2007) and Jan Myrdal not, as many on the “Left” Liu Lin, China, 1969 (Courtesy: Jan Myrdal) then believed, just a sort of “theological” debate but a part of the real internal conflicts. It was an expression of the decay that first led to the collapse of the Second International (1914), and the horrors of that war, and then to the emasculation of the mass labor parties in Europe that paved the way for Hitler. These same ideologies today in the deep- ening crisis of the capitalist system in our countries serve to keep the very real present class struggle of the masses disorganized and leaderless. Though it is important to keep in mind that Marx and Engels were not in- spired. If the facts were wrong so were their conclusions. I remember how Hari Sharma and I in our house in Sweden discussed what Karl Marx had written on Downloaded by [University of York] at 06:16 12 April 2013 the British Rule in India in the New-York Daily Tribune (1853).